topshelf66 wrote:I cn't tell the level of "buy-in" that HCDB is getting from his players but I have to imagine that occasionally 87 has to ask himself "Man, we are at home, why do I have line up against Chara every GD shift?" What is his coach doing for him.

Coach is safe through the olympics for sure. He will no longer be safe once the sellout strek ends. Even through it is somewhat artificial, it is important to the team. When interest has waned enough that student rush can't get them there, they may look to the on ice product.

Isn't the sellout streak already locked up through the end of this season?

RxBandit66 wrote:I never understood the attachment that RS has to Bylsma. He's just a friggin coach, they're a dime a dozen. The past 7 years has been the organization's best chance to win multiple Cups in a long time. The first 2 years, the Pens went to the Cup finals and won a Cup, and mostly did that under a different coach, one who was a disciplinarian. Bylsma has failed each of the past 4 seasons to deliver any type of consistent system that can win in the postseason. Why is the team wasting so many years on a novice coach? Any coach in the league, if unemployed, would jump on the opportunity to coach this team. Shero could get anyone he wanted, and for some reason, he wants Bylsma.

I was most worried the players influenced RS into keeping HCDB around. They all gave him thumbs up after the sweep. I agree his time should of been up long ago. But for some reason RS decided to keep him. Now one of the top teams in the league is 12-8 for the season 5 - 7 in the last 12. Something gotta give.

Team was playing better defensivly without letang. Bylsma needs to have a sit down with him.

topshelf66 wrote:I cn't tell the level of "buy-in" that HCDB is getting from his players but I have to imagine that occasionally 87 has to ask himself "Man, we are at home, why do I have line up against Chara every GD shift?" What is his coach doing for him.

Or how about Crosby thinking, "Man, Chara is lining up against me every shift... why is Malkin not blowing the roof off of this place?!?!?!"

MRandall25 wrote:Because players won't really want to play for an organization who changes coaches every time something goes wrong.

It's the consistency approach. Maintain a level of consistency in the organization (personnel-wise), and you can draw in players (both UFA's and players w/ expiring contracts) because they pretty much have an idea of what they're going to get.

Again, Shero has said he's wanted to model the team after the Red Wings. Keeping Bylsma around, even with his faults, supports that mindset of personnel consistency throughout the organization.

And like you said, Bylsma is a novice coach. He can only get better from here as he gains more experience (or, theoretically, should).

It's really not hard to see why he's keeping him around. Is it the right idea? That's debatable, but Shero has said why, and it's frankly a pretty good way to run a team.

I wonder if Detroit fans are like this with Babcock. They have talent there as well (they don't have the top end talent, but pretty close) and maybe overall is better. He's still there even with an extra year removed from a stanley cup title and hasn't even made it back to the CF that I can recall. Only big difference is Detroit hasn't lost in such spectacular fashion when they get eliminated in the playoffs.

A part of me wants to hope Shero is waiting until he is available. I'd sell some spare body parts to have Babcock coach this team.

MRandall25 wrote:Because players won't really want to play for an organization who changes coaches every time something goes wrong.

It's the consistency approach. Maintain a level of consistency in the organization (personnel-wise), and you can draw in players (both UFA's and players w/ expiring contracts) because they pretty much have an idea of what they're going to get.

this is extremely speculative. i don't think consistency means a hill of beans to free agents. they either want to go:

a) where the best contract isb) to a contenderc) somewhere where they have personal ties

in a pie chart of "things that attract free agents", a steady coaching staff is one of those slices that you need to put in the legend outside the graph since it's such a small percentage.

Beveridge wrote:I wonder if Detroit fans are like this with Babcock. They have talent there as well (they don't have the top end talent, but pretty close) and maybe overall is better. He's still there even with an extra year removed from a stanley cup title and hasn't even made it back to the CF that I can recall. Only big difference is Detroit hasn't lost in such spectacular fashion when they get eliminated in the playoffs.

A part of me wants to hope Shero is waiting until he is available. I'd sell some spare body parts to have Babcock coach this team.

Wow, now that's a delicious thought.

Can you imagine what Babcock would do with this team? I think he'd get inspired play from the superstars and wring every ounce of effort from the supporting cast.

I agree, this is not 100% on Bylsma, not by a long shot. Luckily the Pens have the luxury of being able to figure it out while still on top (or at least close to the top) of the division. They definitely are not playing to potential, but we'll see how things pull together in the next few weeks.

The responsibility always falls on the coach when a team loses or underachieves. I realize that Bylsma has likability with the players, but if the 1980 Olympic team would have had a friend as a coach, they never would have won a game, let alone a medal. I know that comparison is apples and oranges, but there is a difference between likability and respect. Hey, Bush and Obama won four elections based mostly on likability. We're seeing how that all worked out. The Pens need a Patton or an Eisenhower, not a Dubya.

bylsma is a player's coach. he leaves it up to his players to sort out their mental issues. his players are unable to do this (namely crosby, malkin, fleury and letang). so we lose in embarrassing fashion.

you can extract a lot of blame out of that statement, and it will all be correct.